Sarah Scalet, a senior editor at CSO (a sister publication to CIO magazine), took the time to analyze how RFID technology might actually be used in the pharmaceutical industry. In other words, she ignores trivial technology battles over transmission standards and read rates in favor of objectivity and skepticism -- hallmarks of top-notch journalism.

Here is a quick summary of the five myths she exposes about RFID along with some of my own editorial commentary.

Myth 1: RFID tags are anti-counterfeiting devices.Nope, they are inventory control devices. The most effective applications to date have been inside individual companies. One typical review article from Supply Chain Management Review notes "...retail efforts focus on backroom inventory-management practices at the case/pallet tagging level." To date, Wal-Mart has used RFID most successfully for reducing stock-outs.

Myth 2: RFID technology is necessary to track the movement of drugs.Not true. The key to supply chain is authentication at the point of dispensing, which can be done using older technology such as 2D bar codes. Demand-side problems will limit authentication, a topic I will explore in more depth in an upcoming post.

Myth 3: RFID technology can be used to mark pills, tablets, and elixirs themselves. Again, not true. At the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain Security conference, I heard an executive from Nanoink describe how they can encrypt individual pills and tablets using nanotechnology. Very cool! Of course, this technology still has the exact same authentication challenges facing every labeling/packaging/tagging solution, including RFID.

Myth 5: The pharmaceutical industry is this close to widespread adoption. As I pointed out in January, Senator Dorgan would dearly love for everyone to believe this myth so that he can ram through import legislation. But alas, it's also not really true, despite the fervent hopes and occasional misrepresentations of RFID technology vendors.

-----

Unfortunately, articles like this one need to be written because there is still so much misinformation being put forth. Last month, I received an email from a leading industry publication with these (verbatim) statements, each of which is inaccurate and/or untrue:

“Like other CPG producers, pharmaceutical manufacturers must meet retail or government mandates for RFID tagging at the pallet and case levels.” [Opening paragraph in email]

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is actively promoting the use of RFID to improve the safety and security of the drug supply.” [vendor statement]

I have heard many journalists quote Finley Peter Dunne, who said: "The business of a newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Ms. Scalet's article will make you uncomfortable, but in a good way. Well done!

3 comments:

I don't hear the RFID industry or Pharma industry saying RFID was a type of anti-counterfeiting or security device. There is big difference between using RFID as an enabler to a more safe and secure supply chain vs. indicating that tags alone is a security device. A lock is of no use if its not attached to a door to a frame to a building.RFID is only a component to safe and secure supply chain. A system of laws, regulations, business practices, systems, penalities, and enforcement must work together with RFID is needed. Myth#2 RFID needed for Track and Trace. A unique identification system (serialization)applied to all levels of packaging is needed for track and trace system. Other data carriers will work to deliver unique identification, but these "line of sight" data carriers provides no additional hurdles for counterfeiters. We want to make it more difficult for them to introduce bad product into the supply chain. Again, its a "system" of activities needed to ensure a safe supply chain.

I can't imagine why a RFID tag would be any impediment to counterfeiters. It has been a well discussed issue that RFID tags are easily acquired and programmed with real serial numbers. If retagged product is placed one step ahead in the supply chain (by say holding the real product in a warehouse), counterfeiters can authenticate fakes, and send the real products for testing.

Counterfeiters don't have to even access a database, or break open containers, to acquire the serial numbers. The numbers can be obtained using RFID much-touted lack of line-of-site requirement. Say, read an entire shipping container at sea, transmit the serial numbers via satellite, and before the container makes it to land, it could be considered fake by border patrols.

RFID expert Michael Guillory does a nice job of explaining the process on the AIM website. There are also many instructional videos on the web - even for more encrypted RFID like your car keys.

In response to anon above, if the written ID is tied to the TID in a dbase, the anti-counterfeting scheme works. The TID is not writable, ID's the make and model of the tag, along with a unique ID per tag and is done at the time of manufacture. Tie this to the written ID in a backend dbase and now a counterfeiter cannot duplicate this without buying a silicon processing machine and manufacturing their own tags. Oh ya, they would also need access to the dbase to make the associations right wouldn't they.....

DISCLAIMERThe analyses on this website are based on information and data that are in the public domain. Any conclusions, findings, opinions, or recommendations are based on our own experienced and professional judgment and interpretations given the information available. While all information is believed to be reliable at the time of writing, the information provided here is for reference use only and does not constitute the rendering of legal, financial, commercial, or other professional advice by Pembroke Consulting, Inc., Drug Channels Institute, or the author. Any reliance upon the information is at your own risk, and Pembroke Consulting, Inc., Drug Channels Institute, and the author shall not be responsible for any liability arising from or related to the use or accuracy of the information in any way. Pembroke Consulting, Inc., and Drug Channels Institute do not make investment recommendations, on this website or otherwise. Nothing on this website should be interpreted as an opinion by Pembroke Consulting, Inc., Drug Channels Institute, or the author on the investment prospects of specific companies.

The comments contained on this site come from members of the public and do not necessarily reflect the views of Drug Channels Institute or the author. Neither Drug Channels Institute nor the author endorse or approve of their content. Drug Channels Institute and the author reserve the right to remove or block comments, but are under no obligation to explain individual moderation decisions.

The public domain use of our materials includes linking to our website. You do not need to obtain special permission to link to the Drug Channels site. The material on this site is protected by copyright law. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this material may result in severe civil and criminal penalties and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law. This report may be cited in commercial documents with full and appropriate attribution. We do not intend to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use under copyright law or other applicable laws. We do not permit our articles to be republished without prior written permission.

The content of Sponsored Posts does not necessarily reflect the views of Pembroke Consulting, Inc., Drug Channels Institute, or any of its employees.